The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
Here's an interesting article over at ICv2.com. As you may have heard, the Spider-Man franchise is about to undergo a mutation. Sony (SNE) apparently had creative differences with director Sam Raimi over the script for the fourth iteration in the series featuring Tobey Maguire as the titular character. This unfortunately led to a parting of the ways, and the need for a reboot, as they say in Hollywood.
There's an interesting business aspect to the deal that makes it imperative for Sony to come out with a new Spider-Man on a pretty regular basis. The rights will revert back to Marvel if Sony does nothing with them. Guess it's a use-it-or-lose-it deal.
Disney (DIS), as you might imagine, would love for that to happen. Disney now owns Marvel, and if the studio could make its own Spider-Man epics, then it would keep more of the spoils for itself. As it stands now, the deal with Sony is basically a licensing one that limits the upside potential for Marvel and the Mouse.
There's a tag at the end of the cited article that highlights the potential savings Sony will see from a reboot. Indeed, it makes sense. If Raimi and Maguire are gone, the producers can start fresh with cheaper talent. Anyone who has read any of my media articles knows I'm all for cheaper talent, smaller budgets and reduced exposure to compensation packages requiring significant percentages of the cash flow generated by a project.
The author of the piece does express a bit of worry, however. What if Sony is recklessly "messing with a billion dollar franchise"?
I have to disagree with this worry. Spider-Man is a strong film brand capable of bringing in patrons even with new faces. So long as the concept is strong, the elimination of Raimi and Maguire shouldn't theoretically matter. In fact, not a few fans despised the last sequel, from what I understand. In a sense, what does it matter if the studio tries something new? Look at the success Viacom (VIA) had with the new Star Trek picture.
Relaunching franchises shouldn't be taken so seriously. Sure, people tend to love a certain actor or director (I'm no different). How many movie fans would be sorely disappointed if Johnny Depp were no longer a part of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise? A lot, obviously. But what if an unknown played Jack Sparrow? Would it really be that bad?
Hey, as a Disney shareholder, I would love to see the company become so bold. Its studio system wasn't doing so hot with expensive talent, right?
Maybe it's time for Hollywood to start over on a bunch of things. Now, I'll be honest: I'm not sure I could stand another actor taking over for Harrison Ford in the Indiana Jones series. That's just me, though. The younger audiences are probably able to adapt to reboots just fine. And as far as I'm concerned, shareholder value of public companies should trump all other misguided perceptions of risk, especially those based on ego and creativity (the latter is too subjective to quantify, anyway).
Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change without notice.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
